what if someone with a loaded gun and prejudice, following your kid around the block? don't bs with me, be honest with yourself.

Yes, following him. Is that a crime?

Neither of their actions violated the law until Martin punched Zimmerman and knocked him to the ground. Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around. I don't believe Martin knew Zimmerman was armed because if he did, he wouldn't have confronted him. He likely would've ran home.

I had a 2 page argument with FEAR about this. This doesn't prove that he wasn't hit first or that he wasn't threatened first. it actually goes against the story zimmerman told us...there's no reason to believe that he just walked back without a good answer from trayvon when he was so emotionally charged. and if he lost him after following him, still makes no sense that he would stop following him after a minute or two when he was, again, so emotionally invested into following this "thug". also makes no sense how he could get hit by someone "likely" running at him to hit him from at least a few hundred yards away (as he had lost him) without hearing him at all and thus protecting himself from taken down.

Where are the bruises and cuts to his face?

doesn't mean that he attacked first OR without a reason...he was afraid of zimmerman at first. secondly, even if he didn't get hit hard, doesn't mean that he wasn't threatened by zimmerman. we know that he wasn't afraid to use foul language, we don't know what he said to trayvon...and if trayvon did hit george, it also makes sense that he may have been doing it out of fear which turned into anger. if someone is threatening you, yes, you would beat him senseless.

Why is there only a single bullet lodged inside him and nothing else?

point? i never said that it was pre-meditated. i believe that he didn't "mean" to kill him but wanted answers out of him and once the fight didn't go his way, he felt threatened and decided to shoot him. of course it's self-defense but we don't know the entire story. the evidence was weak on both sides. the story was weak and had many fallacies that are difficult to explain. it's sad that the prosecutors did not have enough intelligence to go into these details.

Give me a real and tangible argument beyond cryptic snide statements of superiority. Give me something to work with outside of you deliberately being obtuse and contrarian.

What about the prosecution deliberately hiding and obfuscating evidence that is incriminating to trayvon, and subsequently FIRING their IT guy for divulging the information?

what information was that?

Originally Posted by PhillyPhreak

Yes, following him. Is that a crime?

I figured you weren't going to give me a good answer. yes, following him and interrogating him. none of you can answer this question if it had happened to your kid. you all know you don't want to be in that situation.

if the kid had a better way to defend himself, this story would've been a defense case that he was being followed by a guy on meds with a loaded gun.

Neither of their actions violated the law until Martin punched Zimmerman and knocked him to the ground. Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around.

it's not proven yet that he was punched first and knocked to the ground and certainly not proven that it happened without a reason (as in, zimmerman not threatening him at first). his story still has many holes.

I don't believe Martin knew Zimmerman was armed because if he did, he wouldn't have confronted him. He likely would've ran home.

funny because i believe zimmerman would never have followed anyone like that if he didn't have a gun either.

no no, i'm trying to say that it is conjecture. I'm not saying if he's guilty or not. i'm saying that it is unproven, that we don't know still, we don't have all the answers. there was one side to the story and jury went with whatever information that was presented. it's mostly the prosecutor that didn't bring any good points to the case rather than the story making complete sense.

They had texts from Trayvon relating to fights he'd bragged about being in, posing with a firearm, drugs, general stuff that ruined the image of him being an 'innocent kid' holding a bag of skittles. From what I read the prosecution suppressed information and, when they did give it to the defense, had it put in difficult to read formats to make it hard for them to work with it. Among other things.

The kid was not a well adjusted teenager and apparently fairly violent.

Zimmerman, for his part, has a background steeped in generally being what I'd consider a functional imbecile. But none of the facts presented illustrate that he broke any laws or committed murder\manslaughter.

They had texts from Trayvon relating to fights he'd bragged about being in, posing with a firearm, drugs, general stuff that ruined the image of him being an 'innocent kid' holding a bag of skittles. From what I read the prosecution suppressed information and, when they did give it to the defense, had it put in difficult to read formats to make it hard for them to work with it. Among other things.

The kid was not a well adjusted teenager and apparently fairly violent.

Zimmerman, for his part, has a background steeped in generally being what I'd consider a functional imbecile. But none of the facts presented illustrate that he broke any laws or committed murder\manslaughter.

i remember something about that. how is that not like all teenagers nowadays. yes, it would not have helped but i don't get how that makes any difference here. the way he acted in the beginning, clearly shows that he wasn't looking forward to it, in fact, he was walking away from it.

facts really weren't enough. the story has holes and the case was weak, that's why now he's free. he didn't break any laws at all or did anything wrong if we "believe" in every he said to be completely true.

um elaborate please? what has changed?
Why do you think this way? What's the reason behind it? Those articles you posted don't say anything about what you're claiming.
dude...i don't get why the american people think that anything outside of your country is the most dangerous place in the world. are you freaking kidding me? do you understand maths? are you able to interpret statistics? have you ever lived outside your country for more than a vacation? must be watching too much FOX news. seems legit.

like i said earlier, yes there are some rights here that I enjoy having and i like having but there are also restrictions here that i don't enjoy and didn't have to deal with while living in Pakistan.

rights, not necessarily freedoms. If any of you lived in other countries, you will quickly realize how many restrictions there are here that dictate how you live your life.

lol ignorance.

sure, i'm not saying it's peachy out there, no place is but looking at the overall murder rate and violence, you don't nearly get as many rapes, murders, violence or armed robberies either. any nation that does not have the power or resource of enforcing laws will have such issues.

Again, fox news ignorance right here. the only place something "similar" to this happens is in saudi arabia. and it's not that you "can't" go anywhere without your husband, you just can't be at a social hangout spot unless you join with the family section. stupid but whatever. i don't live there. never will.
It's really not.
me too.

good for you man. i'd just suggest you to open up your mind and maybe live in another country for a little while. i know this isn't going to happen but trust me, it will bring good change in your life.

i'm not trying to be bitter here, i don't regret one bit that i spent more than half of my life here, things that i've learned from here are going to help me for the rest of my life and i'm glad to have lived here but there are things i deal with here that i didn't back home. anyway, Canada is just like here but supposedly a lot less issues.

IIRC you said you left in ~1995? I'm not sure if you question is serious, because it seems blatantly obvious to me that Pakistan has several problems in various areas over the past ~20 years or so. One is the political turmoil that we have sen in Pakistan since ~1999 and it seems to have only stabilized somewhat since ~2012.

Then of course we have the whole terrorism issue in Pakistan. There is a ridiculously large list of instances of terrorism in pakistan on wikipedia:

Notable attacks in Pakistan have been the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and the shooting of Malala Yousafzai. Now you can say that these events occurred in N. Pakistan which differs a bit from the rest of Pakistan, but in the end those areas are still part of Pakistan.

And of course nobody will forget that Osama Bin Laden was living just a few kilometers from the Pakistan Military Academy for several years until he was killed by the US military.

Pakistan may have improved economically (and in a few other areas since you left) but it still has a long way to go before being comparable at all to any other developed country. Hell I still wouldn't consider it comparable to India (though the gap is much less) than a comparison to a developed country.

And the you jabronis that are in here advocating this or saying that this decision was correct are blind and deep down probably a lil "hateful"

And yes, if it was BLACK MAN who shot and killed an INNOCENT WHITE boy, i would still be up in arms.

Are you serious? Calm the hell down man, you really aren't doing yourself any favors with this post.

The evidence wasn't there, and since we tend to operate under the law in the US, we cannot send people to prison just based on people's feelings/sentiments (which are largely uninformed).

You want to blame somebody? blame the prosecution for overreaching in their charges compared to the evidence available. They tried to go for too much and the evidence didn't support those charges so Z. walked.

All I know is that over the past couple of days I have seen a lot of people expose some disturbing thoughts/feelings they harbored that were finally brought to the surface because of this event (and I'm not even talking about the death threats).

Hell here is a quote I took off of my facebook that ticked me off the most:

A couple of thoughts regarding tonight:

A. If the situation was reversed and it was a black man stalking and killing a white boy, there's no way the murderer would have been found "not guilty." It's a sad reality.

B. I don't care what the constitutional laws and statutes say, it's a sad day when a murderer is allowed to go free like this

That rubbish received 17 "likes". The bold part says it all. Makes me wonder about the future of this country (this guy is 22).

But backed to my main point, too many people made up their minds well before all the evidence was presented (what little that was allowed to go public) and didn't care what the evidence said/proved after it was presented. They wanted a certain verdict without regard to the facts, and that is certainly not justice or how our legal system works.

Makes me wonder how people would reach if they weren't fed the constant stream of BS from the MSM who were hyping things up to get as many hits as possible. Perhaps if they received information like this this things would be better:

Many trial watchers, who suspected it would end this way, argued this case should never have been about race.

It would be unfair to make George Zimmerman pay for generations of racial inequalities, no matter how real or painful those troubles may be, some said.

Some suggested it was Zimmerman who was being pilloried to placate angry African-American voters and others who rallied to make the killing a cause.

As legal analysts noted in the months leading up to the testimony, so many people made it so clear they saw the killing in substantially different ways.

To one side, Zimmerman was at worst an overzealous citizen just trying to make sure his neighborhood was safe. To the other, he was a gun-toting predator, hunting, harassing and provoking a fatal fight with an innocent teen.

To one side, Martin was little more than a child returning home after getting a snack. To the other, he was a hulking young man who could have gone inside, talked with Zimmerman or called the police, but instead decided to attack with his fists and paid with his life.

A recap of the trial, verdict

And since people on both sides seemed to have decided the case before the testimony was heard, the verdict was bound to be disturbing no matter how it tilted. Simply put, preconceived notions effectively had people watching two different trials, with every bit of testimony and evidence producing different, and often opposing, reactions in those dueling audiences.

Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, while standing with the disappointed prosecution team, seemed to tip her hat to that reality.

"I never could quite understand people, even people with law degrees, who had not read all of the police reports, who had not read all of the witness statements, yet who came up with opinions one way or the other," she said.

But that is what happened.

"A race war in America is sadly alive and well," conservative radio host Ben Ferguson says. He's frustrated with the many celebrities, sports figures, and activists expressing outrage.

"These people do not care about the facts or respect the law. They want their form of justice and, more importantly, added fame that commenting on this case can bring. These 'professionals' are race baiting to gain a more loyal following."

And it doesn't help when the president sticks his nose into it, and even worse when he picks a side.

no it didn't. and his story had plenty of things that are explainable. if you decide not to see that, not my problem.

seems.
facts do not tell the whole story either. never said otherwise, all i'm saying is that his story has a lot of holes in it and i don't think he's telling the entire truth and sadly we will never know.
because you're believing everything he said.

lol and how's that any different than when "white" kids/ex-soldiers were calling Muslims sand "n"s and wanted to kill and bomb them after the marathon bombing.

we need to understand that there's no difference between any of us, just different circumstances.

Didn't say it's right but the issue discussed is on a much different level. They overreacted and were racist but the situation was a but different. That was an attack on America. That brings the moron out in everyone. Just look at 911. This was a situation involving 2 people not thousands. Simply they were not happy with the verdict. Regardless no matter what the situation is, there is no excuse for blaming an entire race for one's actions.

Didn't say it's right but the issue discussed is on a much different level. They overreacted and were racist but the situation was a but different. That was an attack on America. That brings the moron out in everyone. Just look at 911. This was a situation involving 2 people not thousands. Simply they were not happy with the verdict. Regardless no matter what the situation is, there is no excuse for blaming an entire race for one's actions.

I don't see any difference. Both incidents incited anger in people and my point is that people who cannot control their anger, will say these things. In other words, morons are going to come out in any situation from any race. That's my point.

Singling out won't prove anything because other than the majority of good people in all races, we all have morons in every group, one way or another.

cos im a mod doesnt mean i cant speak out on this. I havent weighed in on this thread as i knew from day one it would be full of heavily insinuated comments like yours and frankly i had to hold my tongue. Lemme guess, i bet you loved when bush was in charge didnt ya!?

Jesus!! We all know he shot the boy, not really sure whats too prove dude!? Usa is $#@!ed up! He killed a kid and got away with it. (yes i know others have gotta away with $#@! before)

not really sure how to take this........but your comparing a kid being shot to a football team getting beat and not liking it or you are saying cos i dont agree that child was killed by a man, im overreacting a lil.......and who is them exactly?

You want to blame somebody? blame the prosecution for overreaching in their charges compared to the evidence available. They tried to go for too much and the evidence didn't support those charges so Z. walked.

But backed to my main point, too many people made up their minds well before all the evidence was presented (what little that was allowed to go public) and didn't care what the evidence said/proved after it was presented. They wanted a certain verdict without regard to the facts, and that is certainly not justice or how our legal system works.

.

Exactly they thought in this case just as they did in Casey case that because public opinion made up thier minds that they could charge whatever they want in win. Twice now that has proven to be thier downfall. Bottom line dont listen to public opinon and do your job the right way. Thanfully there are still people who do not listen to public opinon. To be clear Casey should be rotting in jail but they went for charges they couldnt prove.

so far off topic so we will continue this in a PM if you'd like to continue.

Originally Posted by MATRIX 2

IIRC you said you left in ~1995? I'm not sure if you question is serious, because it seems blatantly obvious to me that Pakistan has several problems in various areas over the past ~20 years or so. One is the political turmoil that we have sen in Pakistan since ~1999 and it seems to have only stabilized somewhat since ~2012.

The political turmoil has been there before i was born.

Then of course we have the whole terrorism issue in Pakistan. There is a ridiculously large list of instances of terrorism in pakistan on wikipedia:

which is directly related to the US occupation of Afghanistan. i mentioned that myself that this is one reason it's difficult for me to go back. and i never said i was going back to pakistan anyway lol. i would probably go to india first. i don't consider myself a person of one nation anyway. i've always liked canadians and i want to live iran, japan and somewhere in EU. i can't stay in one place anyway. but i'll probably never go to iran because it might get bombed too someday.

You're specifically looking at terrorist acts. There are plenty more riots that happen in India where people are murdered. But again, I'm not here to say that one country is better than the other. The only reason I mentioned the stats about US is because even though I like living here, and I've never been a victim of crime and have never seen it but I hear about it around me and in the media and then you have the statistics to show that indeed there's a reason why people are so afraid of one another.

i shouldn't have to live in fear when there are safer places. canada for once. i don't know, i might never do it because i understand that realistically, i'll likely never be a victim of a crime because these things happen between people that know one another and i don't know anyone that could possibly steal/rob from us or get into some kind of gang troubles.

but the random shootings scare me...not me necessarily but i fear for my child. also i'm always afraid that i might accidentally invade someone's personal space and you don't know who has not taken their pills lately. i never had to deal with that growing up. i'm dealing with this here. maybe it's just me but i feel like there are others that feel the same way here. i have an outside perspective so i know i'm not insane.

Notable attacks in Pakistan have been the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and the shooting of Malala Yousafzai. Now you can say that these events occurred in N. Pakistan which differs a bit from the rest of Pakistan, but in the end those areas are still part of Pakistan.

And of course nobody will forget that Osama Bin Laden was living just a few kilometers from the Pakistan Military Academy for several years until he was killed by the US military.

Pakistan may have improved economically (and in a few other areas since you left) but it still has a long way to go before being comparable at all to any other developed country. Hell I still wouldn't consider it comparable to India (though the gap is much less) than a comparison to a developed country.

I think you have misunderstood my point. I'm not comparing the US to Pakistan. If I wanted to do that, I'd just present statistics. Nor am I trying to insinuate that one set of group is better than the other or culture...in case anyone was wondering.

Cos im a MOD doesnt mean i cant speak out on this. I havent weighed in on this thread as i knew from day one it would be full of heavily insinuated comments like yours and frankly i had to hold my tongue. Lemme guess, i bet you LOVED when Bush was in charge didnt ya!?

Jesus!! We all know he shot the boy, not really sure whats too prove dude!? USA is $#@!ed up! He killed a kid and got away with it. (yes i know others have gotta away with $#@! before)

Not really sure how to take this........but your comparing a kid being shot to a football team getting beat and not liking it or you are saying cos i dont agree that child was killed by a man, im overreacting a lil.......and who is THEM exactly?

Bite your tongue 33x, bite your tongue.

Im outta here!!

Heavily insinuate? I gave a detailed post and if you can argue against my points...please do so.

As for being a MOD? I was simply shocked that a MOD would make a BLANKET, INSULTING statement against members of the forum he moderates SIMPLY because we agree with the verdict. So those that don't agree with you are apparently BLIND and FULL OF HATE instead of coming up with our conclusions based on the FACTS presented in court.

That's why I mentioned it's a classic tactic of the left to throw the hate card at anybody that disagrees with them.....

When people on the dole are asked to do job training or community service in return for the money the tax payers give them.... it's called HATE for even asking. If you are a person of faith whose God (scripture) says $#@!sexuality is a sin.... you are accused of HATE. Asking a person to apply for citizenship instead of illegally breaching our boarders without our permission...... you are accused of HATE. It's always about accusations of HATE HATE HATE.

And why is the HATE accusation tactic used? Cuz it's used to oversimplify and demonize those you don't agree with in HOPES that it will SILENCE THEM (Censorship.... the very thing the left is completely against.... yet actively engage in it themselves all the time. That's why they call for boycotts of businesses in hopes of making them go SILENT on issues they disagree with them on).

Also... you come from the United Kingdom. A country that has high burglary, home invasion and robbery rates because the bad guys know private citizens aren't armed with guns. It's why those Muslim guys had no problem butchering that British soldier in broad daylight on a public street. They knew the public didn't have guns to shoot them dead on the spot. Hell.... most of the police force there are just as defenseless as the public. It took a full 15 minutes to get the police officers that DO HAVE GUNS to get there and shoot the assailants.....and that's only because the assailants stuck around ON PURPOSE waiting for the police to come.

That's why I love my country where a citizen is allowed to be armed and defend themselves or others.

As for my football analogy.... it fits perfectly. If England was in the World Cup final against France and England won the World Cup..... would you find it okay for France to insist that game continue UNTIL France wins and THEN declare the game over? Of course you wouldn't. But you a perfectly okay with it in a court of law? Rubbish...as the brits say.

That's what you are advocating when you said you don't care about double jeopardy laws. I'd love to see you accused of a crime and after you won your case, they just kept retrying you into financial ruin until you were convicted. We have laws, rules and limits for a reason. Apparently you only apply them or agree with them when they benefit YOU and your personal agendas.

Heavily insinuate? I gave a detailed post and if you can argue against my points...please do so.

As for being a MOD? I was simply shocked that a MOD would make a BLANKET, INSULTING statement against members of the forum he moderates SIMPLY because we agree with the verdict. So those that don't agree with you are apparently BLIND and FULL OF HATE instead of coming up with our conclusions based on the FACTS presented in court.

That's why I mentioned it's a classic tactic of the left to throw the hate card at anybody that disagrees with them.....

When people on the dole are asked to do job training or community service in return for the money the tax payers give them.... it's called HATE for even asking. If you are a person of faith whose God (scripture) says $#@!sexuality is a sin.... you are accused of HATE. Asking a person to apply for citizenship instead of illegally breaching our boarders without our permission...... you are accused of HATE. It's always about accusations of HATE HATE HATE.

And why is the HATE accusation tactic used? Cuz it's used to oversimplify and demonize those you don't agree with in HOPES that it will SILENCE THEM (Censorship.... the very thing the left is completely against.... yet actively engage in it themselves all the time. That's why they call for boycotts of businesses in hopes of making them go SILENT on issues they disagree with them on).

Also... you come from the United Kingdom. A country that has high burglary, home invasion and robbery rates because the bad guys know private citizens aren't armed with guns. It's why those Muslim guys had no problem butchering that British soldier in broad daylight on a public street. They knew the public didn't have guns to shoot them dead on the spot. Hell.... most of the police force there are just as defenseless as the public. It took a full 15 minutes to get the police officers that DO HAVE GUNS to get there and shoot the assailants.....and that's only because the assailants stuck around ON PURPOSE waiting for the police to come.

That's why I love my country where a citizen is allowed to be armed and defend themselves or others.

As for my football analogy.... it fits perfectly. If England was in the World Cup final against France and England won the World Cup..... would you find it okay for France to insist that game continue UNTIL France wins and THEN declare the game over? Of course you wouldn't. But you a perfectly okay with it in a court of law? Rubbish...as the brits say.

That's what you are advocating when you said you don't care about double jeopardy laws. I'd love to see you accused of a crime and after you won your case, they just kept retrying you into financial ruin until you were convicted. We have laws, rules and limits for a reason. Apparently you only apply them or agree with them when they benefit YOU and your personal agendas.

I uh, think it's pointless for you to waste your breath. don't get me wrong, I consider you right on most things, but looking at it that way is kinda illegal lol.

how is that video dumb? it makes a lot of good points. there are so many holes in the story that no one in this thread can even answer. he's saying the exact thing...just also mentioned by many others out there that know how to look at a situation from a critical point of view.

how is that video dumb? it makes a lot of good points. there are so many holes in the story that no one in this thread can even answer. he's saying the exact thing...just also mentioned by many others out there that know how to look at a situation from a critical point of view.

Did you watch the 2 long videos I posted? More calm and thoughtful than the video you are talking about.

They were "Idiots" when they decide to take this case while everyone else said NO.
Why? Because there is NOTHING, NOTHING to charge him with.

The only ppl who think Zim is guilty are the one making up laws that don't exist.
Just like how they think Zim wanted to murder Martin because he didn't engage the safety on his gun or that he had live ammo in the chamber...

They were "Idiots" when they decide to take this case while everyone else said NO.
Why? Because there is NOTHING, NOTHING to charge him with.

The only ppl who think Zim is guilty are the one making up laws that don't exist.
Just like how they think Zim wanted to murder Martin because he didn't engage the safety on his gun or that he had live ammo in the chamber...

Or the fact of him calling 911 being told not to pursue. Did so anyway and almost "died". But because he had his Chuck Norris handy, he received a get out of jail free card. At the least he shoulda got manslaughter for trying to be an unnecessary hero. In my opinion of course. Can't say I feel tied to the case since I didn't follow it like you folks, but he shoulda got something. 30 days and community service. SOMETHING.

Or the fact of him calling 911 being told not to pursue. Did so anyway and almost "died". But because he had his Chuck Norris handy, he received a get out of jail free card. At the least he shoulda got manslaughter for trying to be an unnecessary hero. In my opinion of course. Can't say I feel tied to the case since I didn't follow it like you folks, but he shoulda got something. 30 days and community service. SOMETHING.

This is part of the problem. He wasn't told NOT TO PURSUE. He was told that he didn't have to do that. It's like people have their minds made up and not even knowing anything about it. Also, saying that he should get something, for a crime he didn't commit? He went through enough already.

Posting Permissions

PlayStation Universe

Copyright 2006-2014 7578768 Canada Inc. All Right Reserved.

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.Use of this site is governed
by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.